KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE practice of the Corporation to leave no order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal unchallenged deserves to be deprecated. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution the challenge has been made to the interim award dated 7. 4. 2001 (Ann. 3), made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, Under this interim award the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant. The petitioner though produced on the record of this petition the copy of the application filed by the claimants but the copy of the reply to this application submitted by it has not been produced. The fact that the petitioner has not produced before this Court the copy of its reply to this application of the claimants goes to show that possibly it would not have any reply to the same. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the Corporation has filed its reply to the application of the claimants, Ann. 1. It is really shocking that the Corporation instead of contesting that application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has permitted it to pass an order without any objection from its side in the matter and when the order goes adverse to it filed this petition in this Court.
(3.) THE Corporation is not an ordinary litigant. It is a State or Agency or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is to exhibit itself to be a model transport operator and not like a private transport operator. It is being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution equally concerned to observe and follow the directive principles of the Constitution. Accordingly it has to implement the benevolent provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which has been enacted keeping in view socio economic aspect. But it is seen every day that the Corporation is acting contrary to what it is expected to act and do. This is not the end of the matter. If we go by the impugned interim award I find that the application of the claimant has not been opposed by the counsel who was appearing for the Corporation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is different matter that the petitioner is raising all these contentions and grounds of challenge to the interim award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur made in favour of the claimant. ;